I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories... ever, but....

It looks like a horse. It runs like a horse. It has a mane like a horse.

I know, it must be a Zebra!

Conspiracy theories really irritate me. Why are people so willing to believe the most complicated, involved and unlikely theories which are entirely dependent upon vast numbers of conspirators all working in complete secrecy, when governments and "secret" organisations have proven themselves time and again as inept at keeping secrets?

Just popped back to see there has now been a few more civil responses..

It's the bit about the third building that dropped that I've never seen before. No aviation fuel in that building no plane flew into it and it went down like a sack of spuds in the same manner...

How does that happen? Genuine question.. I'm really intrigued as to a civil engineering explanation as to why that happened.

It's a steel framed building, admittedly there was fires in that third building, but office fires making a steel frame building flatten... well it's just never happened in history has it? How does that work? When you watch the footage of the third building it looks like a controlled demolition.

It most probably isn't... but I would love to know what caused it to do that?

Do people not think that an airliner with tens of thousands of KG of jet fuel on board is not explosive enough? The WTC was designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707, and in actual fact the towers withstood more than that as one took a hit from a Boeing 757 and one from a Boeing 767, both substantially heavier than a B707. In the end it was the force of the impact that compromised the fire protection off the steel structure and the heat of the burning jet fuel weakened the steel structure - the strength of steel is significantly compromised at relatively low temperatures - say around 600 degs C and the heat due to the burning jet fuel was far greater than that. I really don't see what is wrong with this explanation and why people feel the need to look for some other more fantastic and less plausible explanation.

Because some folks like to feel superior, and one way to do that is to know things other people don't. Some do this by coming up with genuinely new information, some do it just by being better informed than most... But those are hard. Some do it by withholding information from others, and some do it by making things up/believing made up things. For these people, a fact is better if few people believe it, because that puts you in the elite minority, and the easiest way to find a fact that few people believe is for it to be a made up one.

Ironically it seems like 9/11 conspiracies are too widely believed for it to be a really satisfactory conspiracy theory now.

The REAL truth is far worse than any conspiracy theories. Bin Laden warned the USA they would be attacked with aircraft if they didn't stop meddling in the Middle East. How do we know? Because in a Discovery documentary about the 1996 TWA800 crash, the tape was played of that warning, in reference to the FBI thinking the TWA800 explosion WAS the threat come true. The documentary was shown pre 9/11.

The US continued meddling in the Middle East, the attack came.

Lots of US citizens like to believe that nasty old terrorists attacked innocent old' USA, but the truth is somewhat different.

The fires in the third building went uncontrolled for most of the day. Add to that that it was partially damaged from falling debris, and was probably as poorly fire protected as the other towers it seems reasonable.

The alternative is that you add the same variables as mentioned for explosives use on the other 2 towers to a third tower makes it seem even less likely. The lower floors were open and the building probably had a lower factor of safety against collapse than the other towers.

Is it likely that a third building would be rigged to detonate so long after the other two, especially with no plane hitting it?

I also don't think it looks like a controlled demolition. Normally explosives rigged on multiple floors on a delay so you collapse one section onto the one below. If explosives were used on it then it appears only charged on one or two floors lower down.

Good chance that the building would have suffered only partial collapse leaving the embarassing situation of explosives still attached to the building. It all seems highly implausible. (I am trying to be kind).

I'm sure the video has a certain surface plausibility, but then so does the website of the flat earth society.. If the OP really does think there is something in this, he needs to be able to see the wood for the trees. Who cares if there are civil engineering arguments to be made, the fact is that two large jets were seen to crash into the two towers and that the organisation responsible admitted they did it. The fact that civil engineers are able to debate about the third tower should not obscure this fact. Occam's Razor strikes again.

i am not a conspiracy theorist.. i believe in the ability to muck stuff up iobn

for 20 years my father was site/ contracts director of probably the countries largest demolition company. throughout my late teens early twenties i saw hundreds of explosive demolitions from light houses to cooling towers from coal bunkers to tower blocks.

two things strike me. that third tower looks like i d expect a controlled demolition to look. i saw a large number of failed demolitions/ partial demolitions yet the video is a typical controlled demolition.

the amount of work that has to be done to prepare a building is unbelievable the amount and scale of the drilling alone takes several weeks before laying the charges and the miles of wiring. this is not something that could be done during construction without virtually everyone on site being aware of it equally it would be impossible to do whilst the building was inuse impossible

my conclusion has to be that despite appearances it was not a controlled demolition merely coincidently looked like one..

the organisation responsible admitted they did it.
Which can only mean that Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden were in on the conspiracy. Or at the very least didn't in anyway want to undermine the official version.

So an "inside job" backed up by Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden then. The plot thickens.

alot of things about 9/11 dont add up including the 'plane' that hit the most protected building (apart from the white house), the pentagon, yet no one on the ground dies in the building that day and there's no video evidence of it ever happening ( apart from 1 security camera which shows jack) . snowball effect does occur but not at freefall speed

Amusing to see Russia Today cited on the topic of security-service organized bombings of public buildings (FSB involvement in apartment bombings blamed on Chechens and used as a pretext for military escalation).

clear this sort of discussion isn't welcome here. I'll see if I can find a civil engineering forum to discuss some of the technical aspects/flaws in this video.

If you've ever seen a building being demolished you'll notice the sheer amount of work involved in weakening the structure, placing the explosives, wrapping the building to contain flying debris from the explosives, in order to ensure the building collapses in on itself within its own footprint. I think the locals would have noticed all of this weeks of activity and planning if someone brought the building down deliberately. More likely the foundations of the building were damaged when the weight of the twin towers was relieved. If you take away the foundations of a building it is only going to fall one way - straight down. Only a guess, but I don't have the confidence in the US government or any US government institution to pull off a secret conspiracy like this. Too many loud-mouths and people seeking to blab about government secrets for their own personal gain.

In fact I think the original conspiracy goes further - doesn't it suggest hat the US government actually planned and executed the jets crashing into the twin towers to cover up the demolition of the WT7 building? That is even more difficult to believe, that the US government or men in black are capable of pulling this off.

My employer is building a brand new factory at the moment with a steel framework. We have coated the steelwork with an intumescent paint because the factory will be full of chemicals like terpenes and guess what? terpenes burn like aviation fuel. Intumescent paint will retard the bending of the massive steel beams, so massive they were built in a shipyard in Belfast. When our warehouse burned down 15 years ago all the steelwork collapsed like cooked spaghetti. So that's why I think anybody who says the twin towers were demolished deliberately is talking twaddle.

I think the locals would have noticed all of this weeks of activity and planning if someone brought the building down deliberately.

I think the conspiracy theory runs that the explosives etc were laid in the course of a long-running lift replacement job (or something) that involved bogus technicians doing the installation for months. Needless to say, it's all nonsense.

What I do find quite interesting though, is the way that folk get almost angry when they dismiss people that see fit to question the official line..

I find it a bit unnerving

Off on a complete tangent now.. I was watching the events unfold that morning, with the very first reports coming in and the panic in the newsreaders faces, an astonishing experience for anyone..
My instant assumption, perhaps due to other things that were in the news that summer, and the obvious symbolism of the target, that it was the work of anti-capitalists..

How different would the outcome have been over the following years if this were the case?